2. Contact Info

3. Dealer Selection

In the 15-some years that have passed since the launch of the first-generation Toyota RAV4 and Honda CR-V, two pioneers in what would become the compact crossover segment, things have changed tremendously. Not only did someone coin the term “crossover,” but segment entries have multiplied exponentially while shedding almost all traces of their frumpy, confused origins. Of course, despite the small crossover’s continually increasing popularity, not everyone is convinced. Most car lovers continue to profess a preference for hatches and wagons, only moving to minivans with gritted teeth when more space is needed under the cover of practicality. But wagon-loving enthusiasts are a sliver of the population, while crossover-loving families continue to multiply. The segment-leading Honda CR-V, for example, outsells the Dodge Grand Caravan and Chrysler Town & Country minivans combined.

Opting for this breed of family car doesn’t necessarily mean languishing in automotive purgatory. The latest crop, particularly the all-new 2013 Mazda CX-5 and Ford Escape, brings style and driving fun to the table in addition to the usual mix of practicality and a rich feature set. This test’s three other CUVS–Kia Sportage, Volkswagen Tiguan, and Honda CR-V (the reigning compact crossover king, victorious in the last comparison) — also have some style and fun worked into their DNA. But which one represents the best combination, not to mention value — a huge factor in the decision-making process of a new family that no longer has the disposable income it once did.

All five front-drive crossovers you see here cost around $30,000, give or take a grand or two, are powered by four-cylinder engines (two even have turbos), and are fitted with navigation systems. Our proving ground? The freeways, avenues, and twisty backroads in the suburbs east of Malibu. – Kirill Ougarov

“Show me the money” is an oft-used movie quote, and if you want to see the Tiguan’s money, it’s under the hood, not on it. There were two things we all agreed on when it came to the VW: All the value is in the drivetrain, and the price tag is rather steep.

It certainly is a good powertrain. The Tiguan was the quickest to 60 mph (by more than half a second) and through the quarter mile. Editors loved the smooth, torquey engine and its quick- and smooth-shifting six-speed automatic.

But we were disappointed with the ride quality. Senior features editor Jonny Lieberman declared it “really poor, especially compared with the Ford and the Mazda. Worse than the Honda, for sure, and maybe a tick better than the Kia — maybe.” The Tiguan rode hard and transmitted every bump into the cabin, though the impacts were never harsh or violent. Unfortunately, the VW didn’t fare much better in the corners, where it felt tall and tippy — traits exacerbated by the flat seats — and sapped our confidence.

The track told the same story. The Tiguan set the fast lap on the figure eight with the highest average g, but mostly thanks to its strong engine. The 0.80g average it pulled on the skidpad fell on the low end of mid-pack. Braking from 60 mph, meanwhile, fell to the back of the pack at 123 feet, due in part to its virtually tied-for-heaviest curb weight of 3489 pounds.

Most of our concerns, though, were between the doors. As tested, the Tiguan was priced at least $1770 more than rest, but we had trouble seeing the value. For $31,345, we got a car with navigation, a panoramic sunroof, automatic windows all around, seat heaters, and rear-seat ventilation, but no automatic climate control, power seats (except the driver’s seatback), leather, or automatic headlamps. While it wasn’t missing any key feature, we couldn’t help but note that the rest of the field had all the same features, and in some cases more, for less money. It didn’t stop there. Complaints went against the smallest seats-up cargo area in the test, the heavy and hard-to-actuate folding rear seats, the plain and downmarket interior, and the rather pointless mesh sunroof cover.

In sales, more-for-less deals work. Less for less is a no-brainer. Less for more, though, just doesn’t make sense. That, in a nutshell, is why the Tiguan finishes in fifth.

Kia has a reputation for approaching any category as a value proposition. Indeed, in this test, its well-equipped $28,600 Sportage EX wore the most attractive as-tested price tag. Unfortunately for the Korean brand, the only car it “outvalued” — as in, the one most of us would buy after the Kia — was the Tiguan. Further, about the only unique amenity on the Sportage was the cooled driver’s seat — apparently the passenger can deal with a sweaty backside — though its extensive list of niceties can’t be overlooked: navigation, smart key with push-button start, backup camera, 18-inch wheels, panoramic sunroof, heated mirrors, LED daytime running lamps.

Our testers all complained about suspension and chassis issues, calling the ride harsh yet poorly controlled. Kia has a knack for making a suspension too stiff and inaccurate, producing all the negatives of a sporty suspension with none of the positives. Online production manager Kirill Ougarov wondered, “Who tuned this suspension? Did anyone?” Jurnecka commented, “Wow, this thing is all over the place on Mulholland. Feels like in every corner it’s trying to head in a different direction. Tons of body roll.” Associate editor Scott Evans added, “Worst ride quality. Very hard, unnecessarily so. Lots of head toss, especially on the freeway.” Lieberman summed it up as “goofy.”

While opinions on the suspension were pretty unified, they differed on the interior. Everyone seemed to like the design, but felt let down by the materials. The dash is a beautiful piece of style executed in hollow-feeling molded plastic. Most of the vehicles in this comparison use a variety of soft-touch and hard plastics, but Kia appeared to cut more corners. The seats were described as everything from “as hard as a wooden chair” to unsupportive to plain hurtful. Nor was it just the seats. Lieberman aimed his sights right in front of his face, at the helm: “My nephew has toy dinosaurs made of nicer stuff than this steering wheel. Why would you make the part of the car the owner (and potential owner) touches the most the single worst-feeling part?”

The second-least-powerful 176-hp Kia was, unsurprisingly, the second-slowest vehicle from zero to 60 (9.1 seconds) and in the quarter mile (17.0 seconds at 81.2 mph). Everyone judged its six-speed automatic as the most seamless and responsive. Everyone also loved the Sportage’s lowest as-tested price, lofty level of equipment, and standout styling. It still looks like it could double as an eye-catching concept. Its modern lines and good proportions made this the most admired exterior of the group. Sad to say, the marginal performance combined with aggravating ride comfort and handling really knocked it down in the rankings.

“Feels like the old CR-V, but 10 percent better,” said Scott Evans of Honda’s fourth-generation crossover. Given that the “old” CR-V won a 2010 comparison against the likes of the GMC Terrain, Hyundai Tucson, and Subaru Forester, a 10 percent improvement for the 2012 model isn’t necessarily a bad thing. But in this field, with fresh entries from Ford, Kia, and Mazda, not to mention a face-lifted VW Tiguan, 10 percent wasn’t quite enough for the CR-V to retain its top spot.

Lieberman dubbed the Honda “the winner from the B-pillar back,” thanks to a slick one-pull folding back seat, a flat floor, and a low cargo load height. So, if you deem the front seat less important than what’s behind them, the CR-V is the CUV of choice. We wouldn’t fault you for choosing the Honda, as it’s a compellingly strong example of efficient packaging. Associate editor Mike Febbo noted, “Either the packaging is utterly brilliant, or Honda has sacrificed someplace. After seeing it next to the other cars, I am having a tough time seeing any sacrifice, so maybe it is packaged that well.” Nor would we fault the 25,186 Americans who bought one in May, making the CR-V the best-selling SUV for that month and all of 2012. But for enthusiasts like us, the CR-V needed to be 10 percent better from behind the steering wheel.

Evans logged: “I don’t remember the full-electric steering being this subpar. It’s very light and artificial. At lower speeds, it’s fine for the target audience, but it loses confidence as speeds increase.” Lieberman noted: “You’re lower in the Honda than in the others. Very flat driver seat — obviously designed for ease of ingress/egress and not for holding a driver in place.” With the smallest wheel/tire combination and the softest suspension, both of which deliver a cushy highway ride, the CR-V delivered the least lateral grip and slowest figure eight (0.78 g and 28.8 seconds at 0.57 g, respectively), and ultimately proved less inspiring on twisty roads.

In a straight line, though, the Honda, with its 185-hp I-4 and five-speed automatic, was anything but lackluster. From 0 to 60, the CR-V (8.4 seconds) trailed only the turbocharged Tiguan (7.8), and nearly caught the Vee-dub at the quarter mile (16.3 seconds at 85.6 mph versus 16.2 at 86.4). The CR-V may only have five gears, but its acceleration times were solid. And in 60-to-0 braking, its 117-foot distance placed it comfortably mid-pack.

At $29,575 as-tested, our CR-V with the EX-L trim and nav was neither the cheapest nor the most expensive, but it was the best equipped. The only items missing were a power tailgate, a blind-spot system, and alloys larger than 17 inches. The one item we deemed needing improvement was the navigation display (“compared with Ford’s Sync, Honda’s nav screen seems from a different decade,” said Lieberman). Minor demerits, but combined with the unenthusiastic driving experience, they rendered the CR-V third.

“SkyActively slow!” I shouted during my loop in the newest soft-roader from Mazda. Admittedly, not only is my phrase not very funny, but this comparison test isn’t the first time I’ve uttered it. The CX-5 is really slow, especially in passing situations. Why? Well, it’s because Americans are allergic to premium fuel. In Europe, the CX-5 is available with a 14:1 compression ratio engine, but Mazda gives the U.S. a 13:1 ratio motivator that drinks 87 octane, and, as a result, is really slow.

Besides being slow, it’s a great little trucklette. Like seemingly all Mazdas, the CX-5 focuses on the sporty side of driving first and everything else second. “Sweet, sporty chassis. Great steering feel, good balance, loads of grip. Really does feel like the Mazda3 of CUVs,” said Kiino. Echoed Febbo, “Great steering; feels like it’s lifted straight from a ‘3. This really is just a lifted, vertically stretched hatchback.” And as a new father, Mr. Febbo no doubt agrees with Ougarov’s comments: “Large, easy-to-load cargo area. Ron’s giant stroller fit without trouble, and there’s room left over for a small bag. Fitting the car seat didn’t require any extra effort.” Engine notwithstanding, we liked almost everything about the CX-5.

That “almost” is the CX-5’s six-speed transmission. Said Evans, “It’s a bit slow, and there’s no sport mode, just manual. Has an odd habit of doing a double downshift when you stomp on it, then changing back up one gear a second later.” Febbo totally disagreed. “Transmission is quick and responsive for the most part, and the throttle is easily modulated.” Regardless, the CX-5’s lack of oomph means either you or the car will be shifting gears almost constantly. Luckily, Mazda has manual mode correctly sorted: forward for down, back for up.

“Great-looking car; the best here in that regard, I think,” noted Jurnecka, and he’s not alone in that opinion. In fact, the CX-5 is the best-looking Mazda product in quite some time. Our evaluation crew had similar high praise for the CX-5’s interior, with Kiino pointing out, “Love the firm, supportive seats. At first, they seem too hard, but after a little drive time, you realize they’re really, really good seats.” We felt the cabin could use some other colors besides pitch black, but at least the materials were nice and soft. The TomTom navigation — especially compared with Ford’s killer app — was a disappointment. There are two possible conclusions to take away here: One, if Ford hadn’t done such a good job with the Escape, the CX-5 would be our winner. Two, if Mazda could add a little extra power to the CX-5, well, winner, winner, Mazda chicken dinner.

By its nature, this segment doesn’t really have room for greatness. That said, the new Ford Escape is about as close to being great as a compact CUV is going to get. While not at the top of the pack in every aspect, the Escape does almost everything right.

Take the powertrain, for example. The 1.6-liter turbo-four is one reason Ford beat Mazda for the gold medal. Evans found it a “strong little engine,” while Kiino noted that it has “great power from 2000 to 5000 rpm.” More important, unlike with the Mazda, nobody felt the Ford was low on power or struggled to accelerate. The six-speed automatic worked well, providing smooth though not particularly quick shifts. The knob-based manual shift buttons discourage the use of the manual mode, but are better than nothing at all. The Escape also impressed us with its ride, both on the freeway and on the back roads. Kiino noted that the chassis “has a sporty edge to it that makes it feel light and lively,” while Febbo said it was the “best in the canyon.” Evans chose to dissent slightly by noting that the Escape had slightly too much body roll for his taste.

Feelings about the sheetmetal were generally positive, especially compared with the previous Escape, which looked like a shrunken Explorer. This one, bearing fresh European styling, is actually pleasing to the eye, though Lieberman described it best by saying it “looks like a pumped-up Focus,” which is accurate even if it can be taken as a backhanded compliment.

Inside, the revolution is equally dramatic. The old Escape’s slabby and trucky design makes way for a futuristic setup based on that of the Focus, though it’s been considerably toned down. Everyone loved the Sync system and the big high-resolution navigation screen. The Escape was also the only one of the five to come with a power tailgate: Step up to an SEL and for an extra $1895, the tailgate becomes “hands free,” meaning it’ll open when you wave a foot under the rear bumper. Further, the Escape had the second-biggest cargo area of the bunch, giving up ground only to the expertly packaged Honda. Some concerns were voiced about backseat legroom and the general comfort level of the rear bench. Both were partly alleviated by the rear seat’s ability to recline, greatly improving comfort. The only other knock against the Escape is the lack of a backup camera in the SE trim; you’d have to move up to an SEL to get it.

A perfect vehicle the Escape is not, but it is a big leap forward for Ford and the segment as a whole, because it proves you can get style, function, and fun in one well-priced package. Best of all, this one’s from the home team.

We’ve Temporarily Removed Comments

As part of our ongoing efforts to make MotorTrend.com better, faster, and easier for you to use, we’ve temporarily removed comments as well as the ability to comment. We’re testing and reviewing options to possibly bring comments back. As always, thanks for reading MotorTrend.com.

Cargo (Std/Max)

Seating

2013 Ford Escape News and Reviews

The relentless fight for compact crossover supremacy continued between the Ford Escape and Honda CR-V in May, with the Escape coming out victorious at 29,123 CUVs sold. The CR-V wasn't too far behind with 27,298 units, and while it's been partaking in an all-out tug-of-war with the Escape for first place every month, the Chevrolet Equinox has sat comfortably in…

Noble Automotive stopped building its M12 and M400 sports cars in 2007, but South African startup Rossion swooped in to pick up where the UK-based specialty automaker left off. On this episode of The Downshift, we take a look at how the company carries on Noble's legacy and improves the breed with the Rossion Q1.The video begins with Rossion president…

No modern family starter kit is complete without a small crossover. On the automotive family evolutionary timeline, these crossovers live somewhere between a single person's sports car and a family's minivan. Young couples adore the sense of maturity and stability they represent. Crossovers can easily carry kids to school, bring groceries home, and still provide enough space for a a…

Once again, the Ford Escape led compact crossover sales, with 28,934 units sold in March 2013, making it much harder for the Honda CR-V (26,897 units) to catch up as the gap in year-to-date sales continues to grow with each passing month. Cemented in third place, Chevrolet dealers moved 20,997 Equinoxes off the lot.Although the Toyota RAV4 (16,474 units) has…

The Ford Escape and Honda CR-V usually duke it out in monthly sales for the compact crossover segment, but as the Escape took the lead with 24,110 units last month, that left the Honda CR-V and Chevrolet Equinox battling for second, and it was a close race. The bowtie branded CUV fell behind its top Japanese competitor by only 19…